King James CosmologyA Bible Believer's Look At

Bible Cosmology, Geocentrism,Figurative Language,

& Progressive Revelation

By Timothy S. Morton

© Copyright 2018Timothy S. MortonAll Rights Reserved

Revised and UpdatedJune 2019

Published byPreservedWords.com

Introduction

1. Figurative Languagea. Figurative, Relative, and Symbolic Language in the Bibleb. Hyper-Literalism and Bible Believersc. Figurative Language And Geocentrism

2. Bible Cosmologya. Bible Cosmology - Part 1b. Bible Cosmology - Part 2c. Those Pesky "Flat-Earthers"

3. God's Various Revelationsa. God's Revelation of Himselfb. The Golden Age of Discovery and Revelation

4. What About Science?a. Science and the Geocentristsb. The Flat-Earth Fallacyc. A Biological Question

5. Wrapping Things Upa. Why is the Bible Ambiguous?b. Some Final Thoughts

Appendixa. A Geocentrist's Questions Answered

King James Cosmology

Introduction

Over the last 20 years or so there has been a rather peculiar trendamong some Bible Believers to adopt a belief known as Geocentrism—an earth-centered universe. Before around 1990 the term was practicallyunknown among believers. Your author was first introduced to it in the1990s from unsolicited books sent to him by some well-meaningbrethren. More recently, with the increased usage of the Internet and"social media," those who promote it have even an even wider, morevisible influence.

In some Fundamentalist or Bible Believing circles belief ingeocentrism has gotten to the point where it has become a sort of proofof "Bible literacy" gauge. These brethren heavily emphasize taking theBible as literal as possible and frown on any approach that fails to do so.As a consequence any brother who does not see "the truth ofgeocentrism" is considered weak in taking the Scriptures literally anddeficient in sound Bible exegesis. Unlike the geocentrists who claim tohave "seen through the heliocentrism conspiracy," those who don'taccept geocentrism are in their view "still blinded by science andgovernment disinformation." "If only they would just believe theScriptures," they insist.

Furthermore, this new trend doesn't stop with only geocentrism. Arelated but even more fringe group of geocentric believers has comealong that again believes in "Flat-Earth" geocentrism. They believe theearth is flat, has edges, and the sun is just a few thousand miles away.The visible curvature of the earth, photos from space, and the fact that noone has seen the supposed edge doesn't dissuade them at all. They havetheir Bible verses and they have their "proof," and no "humanconspiracy" or "Satan inspired facts" are going to deviate them fromtheir truth.

You author has found when some geocentrists are challenged with afact they cannot adequately answer they will usually fall back to their"safe space" by saying, "Well...I believe the Bible" or "I'll take God'sword for it." Almost always this is said in a tone where he is stronglyimplying his counterpart doesn't believe the Scriptures...at least not as

much as he does. Both may be Bible Believers, but that doesn't matter.This thinly veiled accusatory statement is merely a diversion and amethod to "save face" when the geocentrist gets in a bind. It's a tacticdesigned to put their nemesis on the defensive when they can't defendtheir position. Of course, a true Bible Believer, geocentrist or not,believes the Bible as much as he is able. The real issue is, "What is theBible actually saying."

In this book we are going to examine what the Bible actually says(and doesn't say) about creation, the heavens, the "universe," the earth,and related matters in the context of motion in the universe. We willespecially look at how the Bible "speaks" and its usage of humanlanguage to get its message across.

By no means are geocentrism, heliocentrism, a flat earth and other"scientific" pursuits essential or fundamental to Christian doctrine. Onecan not have an opinion on any them and the Scriptures won't care a bit.Over the last few centuries geocentrism and Bible cosmology havebecame more relevant topics among believers because of the greatexpansion of knowledge and science in the last 400 years; especially thelast 100. People are naturally curious as to what the Bible says about thevisible creation and the universe in general, and Bible believers try theirbest to provide answers. This book is one attempt.

We will delve into this subject from multiple directions. First fromthe standpoint of the Scriptures we'll examine its heavy usage offigurative language; then we will examine what the Bible says aboutcosmology; next we'll consider matters from the perspective ofprogressive revelation; then in a limited way we'll consider theperspective of science. Finally, we'll try and understand what God isactually saying (or not saying) in cosmological matters.

King James Cosmology

1aFigurative, Relative, and Symbolic Language in theBible

Do You Believe?

Among those who deem themselves Bible Believers, "Biblicists," oreven "Evangelical" there is a common claim, "I believe every word ofthe Bible and take it all literally," or just "I take the Bible literally."Some will go as far to say something like, "I believe in the verbal,plenary inspiration of the Scriptures and take every word literally."Though these words may sound "orthodox" and true to Bible doctrine,they can state more than what is actually true. Some may have notconsidered it, but having a literal approach to the Bible and taking it"ALL literally" are two different things as we will explain below.

Those who demand the "all literal" treatment of the Scriptures seetheir view as a type of "litmus text" concerning whether a person is"sound in the faith." Most of these hard line literalists have disdain andeven contempt for those who don't agree with them. They regard them as"liberal" or "modernistic." Actually, your author has found that manywho make such claims don't actually realize what they are saying. Theyequate taking all the words of the Bible literally with taking it as truth,but again, these concepts are not the same.

When one confronts many of these literalists with some of theobvious figurative language in the Bible they begin to "crawfish.""Well..." they say, "there is some figurative language in the Bible, but Itake every word as literal except where it is impossible to do so."Sometimes they won't face the figurative language all the while stillinsisting they receive the "whole Bible." Trying to get some of them toeven admit certain passages are figurative is like "pulling teeth" becauseof the implications involving some of their pet doctrines. These doctrinesare built on taking certain words as "wooden literal," and where proof isshown that the words are obviously figurative, they resist to the point ofignoring that part of Scripture completely. Instead of being the big, boldbelievers of the "whole counsel of God" they like to think they are, they

1

selectively ignore certain parts of Scripture that do not support theirdoctrine. Some act as if their doctrine must survive regardless what theScriptures actually say.

The simple fact is the Scriptures "are full" of figurative language. It isall through them from the Garden of Eden to the Great White Throne.Often figurative language is the preferred method the Lord uses tocommunicate with man, and figurative or representative words cansometimes be more effective in revealing truth than sterile, literal terms.The Lord can write His Bible however He wants, and He chose to use alot of non-literal language to do it.

A Dearth of Material

It is interesting to observe that among the Bible Believing crowdthere is almost no material on the study of figurative language in theBible. This very important topic that deals with many words in theScriptures is essentially ignored. Bible Believers have rightlyemphasized the literal approach to the Scriptures (as opposed to theallegorical approach) for so long they have failed to realize thatsignificant parts of them are not to be taken strictly literal. Some of thebrethren (who may have even been in the ministry for years) don't havethe slightest idea how to determine figurative language or deal with itonce they have found it. For instance, in Rev. 20 John sees an angel witha chain and key who descends to earth to bind Satan. Those who treat thechapter as allegorical (Amillennialists, etc) insist every thing isfigurative, the key, the chain, and the 1000 year period (Millennium),etc. They will confront the literalist with "How can a spiritual creature bebound with a literal chain" and because of his ignorance of how to dealwith figurative language the literalist often has no convincing (or evensensible) answer. (See below for more on Satan's Chain)

What does it mean when one says he "takes the Bible literally"? Doeshe really realize what he is saying? Your author is convinced some usethe phrase simply because they want to be counted among "the faithful"while realizing that many parts of the Bible cannot be taken strictlyliteral. They use the accepted "lingo" but with reservations. Others whoare less informed don't seem to know what the word "literal" even meansand use it ignorantly. In this chapter we will look into this issue.

"Biblical Literalism" and the Scriptures

2

There are generally two senses to what is called "Biblical Literalism."The first defines "literalism" as "adherence to the exact letter or theliteral sense" where literal means "in accordance with, involving, orbeing the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurativeor metaphorical." That is, all the Bible's words must be read in the moststrictly literal sense unless absolutely impossible.

The second view is known as the "Historical-Grammatical Method"which is just a a fancy way of saying the reader "strives to discover theBiblical authors' original intended meaning in the text." This method notonly takes into account the actual words but it does not ignore "therelevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text."Both views can be said to approach the Bible "literally," but the secondconsiders the context words are found in and how the words are usedthroughout the context and Scripture as a whole.

It may come as a surprise to some but today's Biblical Literalism is afairly new concept, not much more than 100 years old. Before then theBible was generally accepted, by unbelievers as well as believers, assimply the authoritative word of God. It was considered God's verywords given to man and essentially all treated it as such. Whether to takethe words "literally" or not was not an issue. However, with the rise of"rationalism" and later "liberalism" and "modernism" during the 18thand 19th centuries, some began to view the Bible as "allegorical" or"symbolical" and treated it as just another historical book.

Around the turn of the 20th century a movement among true believersarose to combat modernism which became known as "Fundamentalism."Fundamentalism's key goal was to promote the "inerrancy of the Bible"and emphasize the literal nature of biblical accounts such as Christ'svirgin birth, His miracles, His resurrection, and bodily return. Thus, incontrast to the Modernists and Liberals who mostly deny these truths, theFundamentalists became known as "literalists" who emphasize BiblicalLiteralism.

The type of literalism of those who started the Fundamentalistmovement was of the second type mentioned above; the Historical-Grammatical Method. Men such as R. A. Torrey, C. I. Scofield, Arthur T.Pierson, James Orr, G. Campbell Morgan, Charles T. Studd, PhilipMauro, A. C. Dixon, and James M. Gray were staunch defenders of theinspiration of the Scriptures and insisted "the Bible plainly teaches thatinspiration extends to its words," but they were not strict literalistsinsisting the Bible's words could ONLY be understood through "woodenliteralism." They believed the Scriptures also reveal truth throughfigurative language and can express truths using man's earthly, human

3

perspective. A Bible word's context and biblical usage were a key aid inconveying the intended meaning. This is still the position of the majorityof Fundamentalists and most Evangelicals today.

However, there are still those who claim to adhere to strict literalism,and many claim to be King James Bible Believers. They spout off ofhow they take every word of the Bible absolutely literally wheneverpossible, but in such statements they reveal their ignorance.

Take The Bible As "Literal" Or Take It As Truth?

The term "literal" in any form is not found in the Bible, yet the term"figure" is. Adam is a figure of Christ (Rom 5:14); the tabernacle afigure of the "more perfect tabernacle" (Heb 9:11); and baptism a figureof salvation (1Pet 3:21). "Similitude" is a term much like "figure." It isused referring to the prophets speaking in a parable or comparison likemanner. The Scriptures do not spend time using words like "literal" or"figurative" to describe its words; it uses much more weighty andmeaningful words like "truth." Consider these passages,

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (Joh 17:17)"But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth

the words of truth and soberness." (Act 26:25)"By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of

righteousness on the right hand and on the left," (2Co 6:7)"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth,

the gospel of your salvation..." (Eph 1:13)"whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;"

(Col 1:5)"...when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye

received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word ofGod," (1Th 2:13)

"...rightly dividing the word of truth." (2Ti 2:15)"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth..." (Jam

1:18)

All is clear. The primary way one is to treat the Scriptures is as thevery words of God consisting of TRUTH. If the words are to be taken asliteral they are TRUTH. If they are to be taken as figurative, such as theparables, etc., they are still to be received as TRUTH, even if the wordsthemselves are not to be taken as strictly literal. For instance, Jesus saidplainly,

4

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto theFather, but by me." (John 14:6)

But He also said,

"I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved,..."(John 10:9)

Is either statement less true than the other? Even though one usesfigurative language and cannot be taken verbally literal? Absolutely not!Both statements are Scripture and TRUTH and express very similarconcepts. That the latter uses figurative language does not weaken itspower or veracity at all. Since it is quite clear that the figurativeexpression ("door") is meant to be understood as a figure, thenunderstanding it that way is actually approaching the text literally andas intended! That is, one is taking the Bible as literal "TRUTH" evenwhen many of its words express the truth in a non-literal manner.

To expand upon our introductory comments above, in this day andage of rationalism and liberalism a question is often asked in surveys andsuch, "Do you believe the Bible literally?" That is a rather ambivalentquestion. Actually, the person is not really asking if one takes everyword of the Bible as literal. They are asking if one believes the Bible isactually true as opposed to allegorical or symbolic. The key concept isthat of TRUTH; is the Bible true. Did God really create the heaven andearth, did He send a world-wide flood, did He part the Red Sea, wasJesus Christ really God manifest in the flesh, did He really rise from thedead, etc., etc. Again, any believer who believes the Scriptures are thetrue words of God and receives them as they are intended is taking themas actual TRUTH even though some of its truths are expressed in non-literal language.

When the Lord said He is "the door," that is the literal TRUTHexpressed in figurative words. God's words are ALL TRUTH but not allHis words are to be taken "literally." There are many, many similarinstances of this type of language. Think about that a while. Maybe someof you should reconsider how you explain your approach to theScriptures. As for your author, he contends all the words are TRUTH,literal or not.

The "Human" Attributes of God

Since in the Scriptures the Lord is speaking to men on earth, He often

5

uses human "speech" peppered with human attributes to describeHimself. Christ said "God is a spirit," but what do physical men who relyon their physical senses know about immaterial spirits? How would aman interact with a spirit or how would a spirit describe Himself to amortal man without using words and concepts man can fathom? Godknows we are merely flesh and finite creatures and thus often speakswith us as if He has our fleshly, finite attributes. From the physicalperspective God is said to have a face (Leviticus 20:6); (Numbers 6:25);a hand (with tattoos!, Isa 49:16) which He can stretch out (Exodus 7:5;Isaiah 23:11), a strong arm (Psalm 89:10). He "stoops down to look onthe heavens and the earth" (Psalm 113:6). He "keeps his eye" on the land(Deut 11:12), He smells (Gen 8:21), holds His tongue (Hab 1:13), andthe earth is said to be His "footstool" (Isaiah 66:1). Does a spiritinherently and literally have these attributes? Not at all. The Lord isaccommodating us so we can understand Him. The fancy name for thesedescriptions is "anthropomorphism."

Some geocentrists will claim God actually does have the "form"of these physical features. He does have hands, feet, face, etc., eventhough He is a spirit. They feel compelled to claim this because ifthese descriptions of God are figurative, then the descriptions of theheavens may be figurative also. Gerardus Bouw insists in his book"A Geocentric Primer," "Most assuredly, God has hands and feet."Bouw is not referring to the instances in the Scriptures where theLord would appear to people in human form (Genesis 12:7-9; 18:1-33; 32:22-30), He is referring to God's essence or form as a spirit.

Nowhere in the Bible is God said to have a "spirit body" (acontradiction) nor does it say a spirit has any kind of human likeform. It says God is invisible (Col 1:15) and omnipresent.Omnipresence does not speak of or even allow any kind of "form,"material or otherwise. Of course, He can appear in a corporealbody, but that is far different than saying he has bodily parts in Hisessence.

There are basically only two groups of people who claim Godhas a body of some form: the Mormons and some Charismatics(Dake, etc.). Historically, this has not been a view held by"orthodox" believers. They have always insisted "God is a spirit"and "a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke24:39)

God Puts His "Finger" On It

6

Another common anthropomorphic description of God refers to his"finger(s)." The term "finger of God" is found several times. David saysthe heavens with the moon and stars are the work of God's "fingers" (Psa8:3) When the magicians in Egypt couldn't duplicate one of Moses'miracles, they said it was because "the finger of God" was responsible(Exo 8:16-18). Even the ten commandments were "written with thefinger of God" (Exo 3:18). In the NT Jesus said He cast out devils with"the finger of God." Do all these accounts mean God has literal, fleshlyfingers? Not at all. God's fingers represent his working in power. Everypassage shows God doing something only He can do. You may say, "ButJesus has fingers." Yes, He does, but He did not say "With my finger Icast out devils," He said "with the finger of God" He cast them out—with God's power. No literal "fingers" are involved.

That the Scriptures commonly and routinely use human attributes tofiguratively describe the Lord is acknowledged by nearly all believers.Dr. Peter Ruckman (who no one can deny being a King James BibleBeliever) in his commentary on Luke 11:20 says,

"An expression like "the finger of God" is what is known as an"anthropomorphism." It is ascribing the physical characteristics ofman to God. "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24), so outside of theincarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ, He has no physical hands orfingers or heart or legs or feet or nose or eyes, etc. But whenrelating to His creation, God speaks of Himself in men's terms. Inthe Old Testament, the Lord appears in the form of a man (theAngel of the Lord), and when He shows up in the New Testament,He takes the form of a man (His Son). So even though "the finger ofGod" is a figurative expression, we understand its meaning."

Not only do the Scriptures describe the Lord with human attributes,they also use attributes of animals to describe Him. In several placesGod is said to have wings!

"Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow ofthy wings," (Psa 17:8)

"...the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thywings." (Psa 36:7)

"...yea, in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge" (Psa57:1)

"...I will trust in the covert of thy wings. Selah." (Psa 61:4)"He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt

7

thou trust..." (Psa 91:4)

Obviously, wings (made of feathers!) are not a feature of a spirit, yetsome Hyper-Literal geocentrists will insist God has them, feathers andall, so they can appear to legitimately present geocentric claims. All thepassages above from the Psalms are clearly poetic and figurative. Theyare the affectionate words of the Psalmist showing his confidence in hisGod's protection, safety, and care. To claim that the words must be takenabsolutely literally is an overreach of desperation.

The Lord Jesus Christ even likened Himself to a bird—a hen chicken(Matt 23:27)! His usage of a mother hen protecting her young pointsright back to the usage of "wings" in the Old Testament.

However, the "wings" found in the Psalms are not the geocentristsmajor concern. It is the "wings" in Mal 4:2 that are the most disturbing,

"But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousnessarise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow upas calves of the stall."

Notice how "Sun" is capitalized. This personifies the sun as a type ofChrist. Also notice how the Sun "arises." The geocentrists use thispassage to connect the resurrection of Christ from the dead to the risingof the literal sun every morning. They insist if the sun doesn't literallyrise then Christ didn't either...but those "inconvenient" wings have toappear and mess things up.

Do they actually want to condition belief in the resurrection of Christon such as flimsy contention as sunrise? Do they really contend onecannot believe one without believing the other? This is not onlydesperate but dangerous. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ standson its own merit and is presented with "many infallible proofs" (Act 1).It should not be tied to literal belief in sunrise or sunset or any otherarbitrary and ambiguous condition.

How is it that the Lord Jesus Christ could be born as a man, liveamong men 33 years, and die likely naked on a cross and no one see Hiswings? How is it that when He was "transfigured" on the mount and inHis glorified body that no one made mention of His wings? How is itthat after His arose from the grave in His resurrection body ofrighteousness that no one saw wings then either? Because HE DOESN'THAVE WINGS! They are FIGURATIVE; they are a similitude,

I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied

8

visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets. (Hos12:10)

A "similitude" is a "likeness" or "resemblance;" a "comparison."God's "wings" as well as the physical human attributes that areassociated with Him are just that, similitudes for God's care, concern,and actions. Again, in describing Himself with human and animalattributes the Lord is using terms and analogies that men across the agescan easily identify with. He speaks with man's earthly perspective inmind. The same for essentially all the figures of speech in the Scriptures.

God's "Human" Emotions

Besides the physical anthropomorphic expressions made about Godin the Scriptures, there are other "human traits" attributed to Him thatmany don't seem to realize are also figurative. For instance, the Biblespeaks of God changing His mind, regretting, or "repenting" aboutsomething He did (Gen 6:6). It also speaks of Him as learning orgaining knowledge He didn't have before (Gen 22:12). There are versesthat state the Lord was surprised when certain things happened (Isa 5:3-7), and seems to be unsure of some future events (Exo 4:9, 13:7).Furthermore, there are many verses if taken literally that indicate Godexists in a linear, sequential, time based reality just like we humans. Thatis, the Lord dwells within time and reacts to the changing states that timebrings.

Consider the many places where the Lord's passions or emotions aresaid to change. For example, the Bible emphatically states the Lord'swrath increases under certain circumstances (Exod 32:11). It is said toHis wrath can "wax hot," be "kindled," be "provoked," etc. (Num 11:33,etc.). For His wrath to increase under certain circumstances, it must beless under other circumstances, thus the Lord emotionally changeswithin time if these words are taken literally. The same can be said aboutGod's favor or grace towards certain people or nations. If taken literallythese Scriptures present God as dwelling within time, changing with theprogress of time, and in some ways even subject to time.

If a Hyper-Literal Bible Believer insists one take these passagesshowing God's changing emotional states literally, he will quicklyconjure up a God that may appear to be scripturally "defensible" butwho is foreign to the actual truth. It is contrary to the Scriptures and theconcept of an almighty and infinite God that has existed from thebeginning. Consider the ramifications, if these verses are taken literally

9

and God is subject to time,

He can actually change His mind when circumstances change(Exod. 32:14; Num. 14:12-20; Deut. 9:13-14, etc.).He can regret actions He had previously taken (Gen. 6:5-6; 1Sam. 15:10, 35; Ezek. 22:29-31).He may not know all the future holds and can be surprised byactions people may take (Isa. 5:3-7; Jer. 3:6-7; 19-20).He would have to test individuals to see what is in their heart(Gen. 22:12; Exod. 16:4; Deut. 8:2; 13:1-3; Jdg 2:20-3:5).The Lord sometimes asks non-rhetorical questions about thefuture (Num. 14:11; Hos. 8:5) and speaks to people in terms ofwhat may or may not happen (Exod. 3:18-4:9; 13:17; Jer. 38:17-18, 20-21, 23; Ezek. 12:1-3)

This presents a view of God that is drastically different from thetraditional view, and this doctrine can be "proved" by simply taking theabove Bible passages literal, and there is a rather recent group ormovement that does that very thing—the "Open Theists."

Taking Literal To The Extreme

"Open Theism" is a relatively new doctrine that teaches that thefuture is open ended. That is, since the future has not yet happened, it isunknown to all, even to God. They promote a God who is subject to timeand dwells within it and thus cannot "know every detail about what willcome to pass." He has to wait and see what the future holds just likeeveryone else. They claim God cannot know the future because it is"unknowable" and does not yet exist even in God's foreknowledge. (Thistheology seems to be designed to counteract the Calvinist argument thatGod has completely predestinated the future.) Like Calvinism, OpenTheism is more of a philosophy than a theology since it develops itsmain arguments from "logic" and human reasoning embellished with outof context or figurative Scripture rather than what Scripture actually saysas a whole.

Obviously, the Open Theism concept of God is a clear departure fromthe Judaeo/Christian concept. It is not a historical position and wasunknown by the apostles and the saints who came immediately afterthem. It is a perfect example of wresting the Scriptures to one's owndestruction because it drastically changes the very nature of God from anall-knowing sovereign to an ignorant, impotent deity. If God is not

10

powerful enough to reign over time, how could any of His promises besure? If he doesn't know what time has in store, how can He guaranteewhat He cannot foresee or control?

On the contrary, in spite of the figurative passages often appealed to,the Scriptures plainly say God is the creator of all things (which includestime, Col 1:16-17), is almighty and all powerful (has power over time,Isa 44:24), and dwells in eternity (in contrast to time, Isa 57:15). TheBible proclaims God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He isnot subject to His creation and exists apart from it. He is no more subjectto time than He is subject to gravity, and when something occurs in time,He is not surprised by it nor does He only then react to it. He by naturedoesn't change even though the figurative "anthropomorphical" passagesindicate that He does. The very nature of God is in question dependingon how one approaches these verses.

Some may have trouble reconciling the concept of an infinite Godwho created and transcends time (who can see all of time at once like aperson in an airplane can see a whole moving train at once) with theconcept of God most often presented in the Scriptures. This latterconcept describes a God who interacts with man within time, makescovenants with man based on events that occur in time, and appears toflow along with time. However, an infinite God who is omnipresent(omnipresent throughout time as well as throughout all places) andomnipotent can easily interact with man within time. He can be theinfinite God of heaven and also present Himself as the personal,interactive God of man.

Geocentrists and other Hyper-Literal brethren will have a hard timeeffectively dealing with Open Theists and others who take versesliterally that are meant to be taken figuratively. One group does muchthe same as the other only with different verses "proving" differentdoctrines.

Satan's Chain

One passage of Scripture that is often used to either confirm or deny aliteral approach to the Bible is in Rev. 20 where Satan is said to bebound. Those who take an allegorical approach to the Scriptures say thechain used to bind Satan is not literal but figurative, and if the chain isnot literal then the 1000 year Millennium mentioned six times in thesame chapter is not literal either. On the other hand the literalists demandthe chain is literal yet concede it may not be physical. They insist thateven though Satan is a spirit and cannot be bound with a physical chain,

11

the Lord can make some type of chain that can hold him...but is Satanactually said to be bound with any type of chain? The answer will revealanother literary device used by the Scriptures, inference or implication.

Few seem to realize that Revelation 20 does NOT "literally" saySatan is bound with a chain. Consider the passage,

And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key ofthe bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is theDevil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set aseal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till thethousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be looseda little season. (Rev 20:1-3)

Notice the verses state John saw a vision of an angel with a key andchain come down from heaven and then the angel laid hold of and boundthe dragon. However, it does not specifically say that he binds thedragon with the chain or even opens the pit with the key! These actionsare implied. The vision of the chain is likely an object lesson used todrive home to John (and us) the extent of Satan's binding and not theactual means. The thrust of the passage is not HOW Satan is bound butthe fact that he IS literally bound in some way and hindered fromdeceiving the nations of the world for a specific period of time.

How could any kind of chain whether physical or non physicalactually restrain a spirit from influencing others through their mind orspirit? Even if Satan is bound with some sort of mystical, ethereal, non-material chain, how would that keep him from continuing to operate inthe minds of men as he has done since Eden? Chains and minds don'tmix. The vision of a chain is for our benefit so we can better understandwhat the Lord is doing because men equate chains with strength andbinding. Also, consider that chains are a human invention! There are nochains mentioned in heaven. It is fitting that God used the image of ahuman invention to bind things to show man that He was going to bindSatan. Thus what John saw in his visions does not necessarily have tomatch in every detail of what will literally happen when the eventsoccur, but each vision does reveal specific and literal truths the Lord isshowing with the vision.

Another example of this is sort of revelation is John's visions of the"beasts" in Revelation chapters 13 and 17. By definition a beast is a fourfooted animal of some sort, not a human, but even the most strict, Hyper-

12

Literal believer will insist these beasts are not true beasts at all butactually men, specifically the "man of sin" or the Antichrist.Furthermore, the "sea" the beast comes out of is not a literal, wateryocean but actually the sea of nations or humanity. The key lesson is thefuture events don't have to literally match what John saw in his visionsto be true. There is a "beast" coming, but he won't really be a sevenheaded beast like John saw. He will be a man with a seven-fold aspect ofsome sort.

Using symbols and figurative language in prophecy to reveal aspecific literal truth is a very frequent practice of the Scriptures. Thechain in Revelation chapter 20 does not have to speak of a literal chainbut of Satan being literally bound, the beast of Rev 13 speaks not of aliteral beast but of a literal human Antichrist, and the key to thebottomless pit speaks not of an actual key and gate but of literal accessto hell.

Before we move on, we mentioned how the Scriptures do not actuallystate that Satan is bound with a chain but only imply it. This is a frequentdevice of the Scriptures. Take the beloved passage in John 14 whereChrist says His Father's house has "many mansions,"

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also inme. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, Iwould have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I goand prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you untomyself; that where I am, there ye may be also. (Joh 14:1-3)

The passage states the fact of the existence of "many mansions," butnowhere does it explicitly state that the mansions are FOR the disciplesor that THEY will live in them! This is only implied. Furthermore, if themansions ARE for the disciples, then WHY does Christ have to "preparea place" for them since the mansions already exist? Situations like thisdemand one study context to try and determine the subjects and objectsof a passage, but that is still no substitute for an explicit statement whichis REQUIRED to PROVE a doctrine. This passage only suggeststhrough context that the mansions are for the disciples. Furthermore, toclaim that the promise of a mansion extends to all believers is not evenhinted in the context. Christ was only speaking to the disciples, and allthe promises of John chapters 14-16 were made only to the disciples.Other believers, like us, are not mentioned until John 17:20! Think aboutthat a week or two. Many believers assume too much and appropriatepromises they cannot prove apply to them.

13

King James Cosmology

1bHyper-Literalism and Bible Believers

Bible Believers are so named because they claim to do that very thing—believe the Bible—and that, a specific Bible. The Authorized KingJames Bible of 1611. They claim to believe what it says, as it says it,without reservation. Your author is among this group. However, some ofthe brethren are so strict and literal in how one is to believe or approachthe Bible that they actually miss some of the truths the Lord is wantingto convey. We call this Hyper-Literalism.

Now as soon as we say believers can be hyper or too literal withsome statements in the Scriptures some will puff up and charge us asbeing "liberal" or even an "unbeliever." This type of reactionary chargeis typical. Bible believers as a group have had to deal with true unbelieffrom Modernism and Liberalism for so long that some over-react andbecome hyper-literal, even to their own Bible Believing brethren. Theyinsist every passage must be taken strictly literal unless it is absolutelyimpossible to do so. On the surface this may sound "militant" and"biblical," but problems arise when they force and distort figurativepassages to make them "fit" their literalism. In fact, by not allowingobvious figurative language to speak as intended, they hinder or mufflewhat the Scriptures are actually saying.

In general, that the Bible should be first approached by taking itswords literally is a "no brainer." When a person reads the Bible heshould assess the words in their plain, normal, natural, obvious sense,much like we would read and understand a newspaper or book. Dr.David Cooper, founder of The Biblical Research Society, is known forhis "Golden Rule of Interpretation,"

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek noother sense.Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literalmeaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in thelight of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truthsindicate clearly otherwise.

14

This rule should be generally followed, but it is not flawless.Scripture uses many literary devices that are not always announced inthe immediate context. Devices such as metaphor, allegory, types,hyperbole, idioms, parable, etc. Ethelbert Bullinger wrote a book called"Figures of Speech In the Bible" that details 217 different types offigures. His Companion Bible has many of them marked in the Biblenotes.

Cooper's Rule can also be limiting in its scope. He says, "When theplain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense," butmany passages in Scripture have more than one sense or a dual (or evenmultiple) application. If one just takes the local, immediate sense of say,Gen 22:8 where Abraham says, "My son, God will provide himself alamb for a burnt offering," and then seeks no other sense, he misses thatthe passage is not only speaking about God providing Himself a lamb,but He is also MAKING Himself a lamb!

Again, Scripture is to be first taken literally and plainly, and that isthe normal way people approach words. When a person sees or hears anywords or speech he naturally (and by instinct it seems) assesses thewords literally first and only if they cannot sensibly be taken that waydoes he consider them as figurative. When the Bible says God "createdthe heaven and the earth," flooded the earth, parted the Red Sea, sentmanna every day, etc., it is natural to take the words at face value. Thesame when it says Jesus was born of a virgin, died on a cross, rose fromthe dead, is able to save sinners, and will physically return, etc. Thosepassages are not unclear, ambiguous, or figurative. If one tries to makethem figurative or allegorical he is arguing against the natural and plainmeaning of the words. All the key and fundamental doctrines of theBible are clear, plain, and explicit.

A Prime Example

Although the words of Scriptures should be first addressed literally,there are many passages and statements in the Scriptures that simplyshould not be taken that way. A lot of this figurative language is found inthe Old Testament, but the New Testament has a significant share also.Here is a clear New Testament example straight from the Lord's mouth.

In Acts 9:5, after Paul fell to the earth from the bright light fromheaven, the Lord spoke to him and asked, "... it is hard for thee to kickagainst the pricks." "Pricks" are sharp goads or spikes carried by menplowing with oxen, and if an ox would kick against the prick, it wouldhurt and could even wound its legs. Here the question arises, would it be

15

physically possible for Paul to be literally harnessed in an ox yoke,pulling a plow, and kicking against the spikes? Well...yes, it is verypossible; people have done stranger things. But is that what reallyhappened? Of course not. Even though it could actually occur, it is sooutrageous that everyone rightly sees it as a figure. The Lord wasreferring to how Paul was battling with his conscience in persecuting Hispeople.

With just this one passage the Hyper-Literal "impossible" argumenthas been shown to be invalid. Their claim that all passages that can betaken literally must be taken literally just doesn't work. Your author hasnever heard or read anyone who claimed Paul was literally kickingagainst literal pricks with his literal feet. Nor does he know of any whoclaim Paul was actually hitched to a literal ox yoke.

Another figure like this in Acts is where the Jews "gnashed on him(Stephen) with their teeth" in Act 7:54. Did they actually chew his fleshwith their mouths? Highly unlikely.

How about when Paul said,

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolvesenter in among you, not sparing the flock." (Act 20:29)

Was he talking about literal, canine wolves with four legs or peoplewho seek to devour like wolves? Is a congregation a literal flock ofsheep or are sheep a figure of the believer? Likewise when Paul said,

"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of theconcision." (Phi 3:2)

Does he mean German Shepherds and Doberman Pinchers or peoplewho act like dogs? Can you prove it from the context? Is it impossible tobeware of literal, four-legged dogs? See the messes the Hyper-Literalmake for themselves?

"Wash One Another's Feet"?

There are many comparison type figures in the Scriptures. When theLord said He was "water," "bread," a "door," a "stone," and a "vine,"etc., these are all obvious figures. More than that there are evenfigurative actions; actions the Lord promoted that many believers nowdo not perform literally. One is the action of the Lord washing thedisciples feet. Here it is not just a few words or a phrase that are

16

figurative, but the whole process. After the Lord washed their feet hesaid (John 13:14),

"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye alsoought to wash one another's feet."

Should this be taken literally? Should believers actually wash oneanother's feet? That's what the words plainly say, but very few literallypractice it. Your author has never been in a Bible Believing churchwhere he saw it practiced. Why do most Bible Believing churches refrainfrom doing this, even those who are hyper-literal about other things likegeocentrism? Its because they see the passage as a metaphor forbelievers serving each other in general. The inconsistency (and evenhypocrisy) is obvious.

What Did You Say?

Here is a figure of speech of another type. Paul said in 1 Corinthians4:8, 10,

"Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kingswithout us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also mightreign with you...We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise inChrist; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but weare despised."

Are these statements that should be taken literally at face value?Hardly, Paul is using the literary methods or irony and sarcasm toconvey the opposite of what the words actually say! It is a quite commonway of speaking. Job did it as well,

"No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you.(Job 12:2)

This type of speech is made "all the time" (another figure) today:"You really did a good job..." (of wrecking your car).

Words of this type could be taken literally very easily, and it is verypossible to do so. However, if these passages and phrases are takenstrictly literal then the very message the Scriptures are wishing toconvey is completely lost! Now think about that a while.

17

Idioms For Dummies

Another very common figure of speech in the Scriptures is the idiom.As another said,

"An idiom is a common way of expressing thoughts by wordsand phrases having an understood meaning that is different from theliteral meaning. The intended meaning cannot be comprehended byinspection of the words alone but also by investigation of ordinaryusage. Idioms of one's own native language are difficult to detectbecause they are simply the way we normally put words together.English is full of idiomatic expressions; examples include "realestate," "give way," "take your time," "come up with an idea,""come down with a cold," "work out," "dead even," "level best," "ofcourse," and "how do you do.

"Idioms are often lost when translating, because they differ fromlanguage to language. For example, the way to say "good bye" inGerman is literally "on again to see." The same is true when theBible is translated into English or any other language. An actualword-for-word idiom translation is difficult to follow. However,some so-called translations today are considered "thought"translations, which are essentially commentaries more than truetranslations."

Take, for instance, the American English idiom "He bit the dust."What do the words actually say? A rather filthy thing to do, don't youthink? But what do the words really mean? To any American of the last50 years the words mean someone has died, usually by accident. Noticehow the words themselves don't even remotely convey the actualmeaning of the phrase. There is no way a person speaking anotherlanguage could understand the meaning of these words EVEN IFACCURATELY TRANSLATED! The meaning is not in the individualwords but in the colloquial use of the phrase. The phrase has a meaningof its own which is independent of the words. Verbal literalism in caseslike this is a hindrance to the truth.

Many of the idioms of the King James Bible have become soaccustomed to us that we forget some of them are figures. Take forinstance the word "seed." The Bible speaks much about men having"seed," but they really don't. Plants have seed (Gen 1:11), men havedescendants or heirs. Isaac and Jesus are of the "seed of Abraham.""Seed" is a Hebrew idiom for human descendants. And, of course, we all

18

know what the biblical "know" means (Gen 5:1). The first part ofJeremiah 4:4 ("Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away theforeskins of your heart") would really be a mess if you tried to makethose descriptive words literal. Hebrew is a very expressive languageand the King James Bible masterfully translates it into English, idiomsand all.

The Bible says Jerusalem is the "apple of his [God's] eye" (Zec 2:8).This is a double idiom of sorts because people do not have apples in theireyes, and if they did, what would it mean? The "apple" is an idiom forthe pupil, but what does it mean to say something is the "pupil of mineeye"? That is a idiom stating something is very dear or precious to aperson. To take the phrase as literal is meaningless.

Ever read in the parable of the "Good Samaritan" about how thethieves left the man "half dead" (Luke 10:30)? How could that possiblybe taken literally? A person is either dead or not. There are "literally"(smile!) thousands of idioms and other figures in the Bible that by theirvery nature should not be taken literally. Again, to do so is to miss thevery intent of the passages the Lord is wanting to convey.

Clearly, the "cut and dried" world of the Hyper-Literal is not so "cutand dried"?

Of Heart and Eyes

Often the Bible uses parts of the human anatomy as figures of speech.The "heart," for instance, is the most often used. Everyone knows whatone's literal heart is. It's the organ that pumps blood through your body.An interesting observation is, to your author's knowledge, out of the 833times "heart" is found in the Bible, not once does it refer to the physicalorgan. Instead the term most often figuratively refers to one's innerbeing: the center of man's thinking, emotions, and will. As the physicalheart is in the center of one's body, his spiritual heart is the center of theman himself. As the Way Of Life Encyclopedia states,

"Man thinks in his heart (Ge. 6:5; Pro. 23:7). He understandswith his heart (Pro. 2:2). He deviseth his way with his heart (Pr.16:9). The heart meditates (Psa. 19:14), considers (De. 4:39),purposes (Da. 1:8), takes counsel (Pr. 20:5), reasons (Lk. 5:22),desires (Ro. 10:1), has intents (He. 4:12). From the heart proceed allthe actions and motivations of man (Pro. 4:23-27; Mt. 15:18-20).The mind is used as a synonym for the heart (De. 28:65; 1 Sa. 2:35;1 Ch. 28:9; Da. 5:20; Phil. 4:7; He. 8:10). The heart/mind is the

19

source of the thoughts and imaginations (Gen. 6:5; De. 15:9; 1 Ch.29:18; Pro. 23:7)."

Even though the term heart is used in several different applications,every time it is used in the Bible it is figurative. Fascinating.

Much the same can be said about the"eye." Although the physical eyeis referred to many times (Gen 13:10; Mat 20:34, etc.), the spiritual,inner "eye" is the primary usage of the term. When Adam and Eve's"eyes were opened," it was not their literal, physical eyes, it was theirspiritual inner eye or sight that was given. In this case their inner sightcould see evil. On the flip side, after Paul's conversion, one of the thingsthe Lord said he would do among the Gentiles was "open their eyes, andto turn them from darkness to light" (Act 26:18). The eyes are figurative(as is the "darkness" and "light"). Later in Acts 28:27 when the Jewsrefused to hear Paul's message he said,

"For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears aredull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should seewith their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with theirheart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

The "heart," "ears," and "eyes" are all figurative uses of humanorgans. The organs represent the inner spiritual aspects of the humancondition. Treating the terms as literal would greatly cloud the intent ofthe message.

What About the Parables?

One of the Lord's preferred methods of communication was with"parables" (Mark 4:34), and a parable is the epitome of a figure ofspeech. The Greek word behind parable ("parabole") is even translatedas "figure" in Heb 9:9. By its very design it is not to be taken literally. Aparable is generally defined as "a simple story used to illustrate a moralor spiritual lesson," and the story may or may not be actually true. TheLord spoke using a parable around 50 times.

Although most parables could be taken in some sense literally, to doso would wreck its entire message. take for instance the parable of theshepherd and his lost sheep,

And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you,having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the

20

ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost,until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on hisshoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth togetherhis friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for Ihave found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewisejoy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more thanover ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. (Luk15:3-7)

Notice how unlike some of the other parables this one is personalizedto those present, "What man of you...." Does this charge only apply tothem? Furthermore, the story only deals with shepherds and sheep. Doesthat mean that those of us who are not shepherds can ignore it? See howthe flow goes? Taking this account as strictly literal, even though it ispossible, essentially "guts it" to where it has no meaning. However,when the story is used as it is intended, the meaning is very clear—JesusChrist is the Good Shepherd who gives His life for the sheep (John10:11). He came to seek us as a sheep who had "gone astray" (Isa 53:6)and to save you (Luke 19:10).

If you want to get into a quagmire, however, start pushing the figuresa little harder into doctrine a see the problems that arise. Suppose youmake the lost sheep a saved man as the Bible often does in other places(John 10:26-28). How do you explain the shepherd (Christ) loosing oneof his sheep, especially when He says, "I give unto them eternal life; andthey shall NEVER PERISH, neither shall any man pluck them out of myhand" (John 10:28)? If you make the sheep a lost person, the shepherd issaid to LEAVE the 99 saved sheep while looking for the lost one! This isthe same Shepherd who said "I will NEVER LEAVE THEE, nor forsakethee" (Heb 13:5)! Either way the parable becomes a hindrance to truthrather than an aid when pushed too far.

Ah, the messes some of the brethren make for themselves. Obviously,the parable is not meant to be pushed that hard or read that literal. To doso renders it pretty much meaningless. This is much the same for manyother parables.

Figurative Language Between Members of the Godhead

It may come as a surprise to many, but figurative language is sopervasive in the Scriptures that it is even used between members of theGodhead (or Trinity). Look at Luke 10:21,

21

"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, OFather, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these thingsfrom the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: evenso, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."

Notice how the Lord thanks the Father for revealing truths unto"babes." Does He really mean infants who may not even "know theirright hand from the left," or does he mean those who are not considered"wise and prudent" by themselves and the world? Obviously, "babes" isused in the latter sense. Also, Look at John 17:12

"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name:those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, butthe son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

"Son of perdition"? Perdition is a state of being, not a person.Perdition is essentially the opposite of salvation; the state of lostness. Itcan only have children in a figurative sense.

Of course, Judas is the person in question and it is interesting thatwhen talking about him the Lord and His Father use a description of himinstead of his name. Hum...what would your name be?

Saying a person is a "son of" something is a common Hebrew idiomshowing a relationship between the person and what he is the "son of"("sons of the prophets", "son of Belial," etc.)

While in the Garden of Gethsemane the Lord prayed (Matt 26:39),

"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me:nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."

Was the Lord desiring a literal (wooden, glass, metal, etc.) "cup" passfrom Him? Of course not. The cup is a figure of His Father's wrathwhich He was to bear on the cross. That the members of the Godheadcommunicate using figures of speech is very interesting. It shows thatfigures in language are not necessarily a human invention and are used toaccommodate man's understanding.

Too Literal Can Be Dangerous

Those who hold to Hyper-Literalism refrain from mentioning thepassages where being too literal is not only an error but can even bedangerous. Consider the Christ's words in John 6,

22

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, yehave no life in you...Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,hath eternal life...For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood isdrink indeed...He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him..." (Joh 6:53-57)

This is the famous passage used by Roman Catholics to "prove" thatone must "eat" the actual flesh of Christ to "receive" Him. On the basisof taking this literally the Catholics invented the doctrine of"Transubstantiation" where their priests can magically change normalbread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Lutheransalso believe a form of this by claiming "that Christ is in, with and underthe forms of bread and wine." Christ's words are quite clear and if takenliterally they would mean exactly what they say. They were so clear thatmany of the disciples He was speaking too became so perplexed theysaid, "...This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" and eventually leftHim.

Passages like this are a bane to the Hyper-Literal Bible Believer.Bible Believers do not teach one must actually eat the flesh of Christ toget eternal life so how are they going to consistently deal with them?They can't. They usually try to bluff their way through by insistingeating Christ's flesh should not to be taken literally because it isimpossible, but on the other hand all the passages THEY want to takeliteral must be treated as such.

The answer to passages like this is to take them the way the Biblepresents the subject as a whole. If the language is figurative, deal with itas such. If not, take it literally. Plowing through passages with a fixedmentality, whether taking words literal or allegorical, will lead to erroralong the way. (The Catholics are in error here because in vs 63 Christclarifies matters by saying, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the fleshprofiteth nothing...")

Preterism is another heretical view that overemphasizes the"literalness" of certain passages.

"Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology which holds thatsome or all of the Biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days (orEnd Times) refer to events which actually happened in the firstcentury after Christ's birth. The term preterism comes from theLatin praeter, meaning "past." Adherents of Preterism are known asPreterists. Preterists believe that the Second Coming of Christ took

23

place in 70 A.D. and they also believe that the "great tribulation"(Matt. 24:21) took place in or around 70 A.D."

One passage they often quote is Matt 16:28,

"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, tillthey see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

They insist this verse must be taken absolutely literally and then useit to "prove" that Christ's second coming had to occur before thedisciples died who were present when He spoke. Matthew 24:34; 26:24and a few more verses are used in a similar manner. If the verse is takenliterally in a stand-alone manner it does say what they claim, but if onereads the next chapter where Christ is transfigured before the discipleseyes, he realizes Christ was speaking of that event. The kingdom did notactually arrive but a foretaste of the King's glory was on display whichwas a figure of His actual coming in the future. A lot can be learnedfrom this passage about how the Lord uses words and His intendedmeaning with them.

Of Course, another group that gets into a mess by taking certain Biblepassages too literal are the above mentioned Open Theists. The primaryerror of the Open Theists is taking passages literal that should be takenfiguratively and on that basis insisting God is subject to time. Rememberabove where we mentioned the Scriptures using "anthropomorphisms" todescribe God's actions? Since in the Scriptures the Lord is speaking tomen on earth, He often uses human methods and human attributes todescribe Himself. By taking these passages as literal (like a good Hyper-Literal), they actually end up teaching heresy.

Figurative Language—How Can One Tell?

From the examples we have mentioned above (and more to follow) itshould be quite clear that figurative language is common in theScriptures. We also demonstrated that to try and force the figurativelanguage into strict or wooden literalism leads to error at the least andheresy at the worst. The way to approach the language of the Scripturesis to simply let them speak in their natural manner. Every word is truth,even the most literal truth, but many of the words only reveal their literaltruth when they are not taken absolutely literal themselves. Here is whatEthelbert Bullinger says about figures in Appendix 6 of his CompanionBible (emphasis mine),

24

A "Figure of speech" relates to the form in which the words areused. It consists in the fact that a word or words are used out oftheir ordinary sense, or place, or manner, for the purpose ofattracting our attention to what is thus said. A Figure of speech is adeigned and legitimate departure from the laws of language, inorder to emphasize what is said. Hence in such Figures we have theHoly Spirit's own marking, so to speak, of His own words.

This peculiar form or unusual manner may not be true, or sotrue, to the literal meaning of the words; but it is more true to theirreal sense, and truer to truth. Figures are never used but for thesake of emphasis. They can never, therefore, be ignored. Ignoranceof Figures of speech has led to the grossest errors, which have beencaused either from taking literally what is figurative, or from takingfiguratively what is literal.

Here some will complain, "If we allow figurative language in theBible, then how can we know what is figurative and what isn't?" or"Everyone will have a different idea as to what is figurative and use it toexplain away what is actually true, such as creation, the miracles,Christ's resurrection and return, etc."

First, there is almost always no problem for a rational human beingwho can comprehend natural and normal language to determine thefigurative from the literal. Take Matthew 7:15 for instance,

"Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothingbut inwardly are ravenous wolves."

Is there any problem in determining that the "prophets" are literal andthe "sheep's clothing" and "ravenous wolves" are figurative? How aboutMatthew 21:42 where it says,

"...The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become thehead of the corner:..."

That whole phrase is figurative. The "stone," "builders," and "corner"do not literally exist, but does anyone have any problem understandingthe truth of the words when considered in their context?

Bible prophecy often has figurative symbolism associated with it.Here are a few examples,

SYMBOL EXPLANATION

25

Head of Gold NebuchadnezzarRock cut out of mountain Kingdom of God

Ten horns of 4th beast Ten kingsTwo-horned ram Medo-Persian kingsWoman in bushel Iniquity of the land

Seven stars Angels of the churchesSeven lampstands Seven churches of AsiaBowls of incense Prayers of saints

Great dragon Satan, DevilTen horns of beast Ten kingsfrom Walther C. Kaiser, Jr. Back Toward the Future, Baker Books, 1989.

Often just reading these symbols within their context will clear themup. Usually the Scriptures will specifically state what the figurerepresents like Satan is called a "dragon" (Rev 12:9). Is he really areptilian dragon like "Godzilla"? Or is he really a "roaring lion" (1Pet5:8) from the plains of Africa? No, but those comparisons do effectivelydescribe his characteristics much more than just saying Satan is a "badguy."

Guidelines for Determining Figures of Speech

As we mentioned earlier, figures of speech usually presentthemselves quite obviously, however some can be a little more elusive.When confronted with a passage that the reader may believe contains afigure of speech there are a few guidelines that will help.

First, always try to take the words literally. If it makes little or nosense to apply it literally, then it's probably a figure of speech. Aswe saw above with the example of Paul kicking against the pricks,using the "impossible test" will often fail. One cannot reliablyinsist that a passage must be impossible to take literally before itshould be taken figuratively.Once a figure is determined, let the context determine the meaningof the figure.Then look for what is behind the figure; what the figure represents.Look for specific points of similarity and difference.Be careful not to force the figure past the author's intendedmeaning. Just like the parables, there's a limit to the meaning of

26

any figure of speech.

When one follows these guidelines, much of the Bible's figurativelanguage will easily be understood.

27

King James Cosmology

1cFigurative Language And geocentrism

In the previous chapters we looked at how the Bible uses figurativelanguage in general. In this chapter we will examine figurative languagein the context of Geocentric and Flat Earth cosmology.

The Traveling Sun?

Geocentrists often mention how the Scriptures portray the heavensfrom a Geocentric perspective, and in this they are correct. The Bibledoes speak of the sun, moon, stars, and heavens in general from anearthly, geocentric standpoint, as everyone does yet today. Even themost die-hard Heliocentrist speaks of "sunrise," "sunset," etc., in hisnormal conversation. We all live on the earth and naturally view thephysical world from an earthly perspective, and since the Scriptureswere written for men on the earth, they also speak from an earthlyperspective. They speak to men "under the sun" (Ecc 1:3).

The geocentrists will often brag about how they have 100, 200, oreven 300 verses in the Bible that show geocentrism is true, but uponexamination almost all of them are relative, earth perspective statements.For an example we will look at the first mention of the "sun" risingfound in the Scripture, Gen 19:23,

"The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar."

Consider these words carefully. It says the "sun was risen upon theearth." If this is taken as an absolute statement then there must be a timewhen the sun is NOT risen or shining upon the earth...but that is notpossible! The sun is shining somewhere on the earth at all times in anycosmological system. When pushed on this the geocentrists will usuallysay, "Well...here the earth is not the whole earth but just the local area."Ah, equivocating already. Their absolute approach to dealing with theseterms is falling apart at their very first "proof" verse!

If one will be honest with the Scriptures and himself he will admit thesun does not literally and absolutely set in any scenario. It is always

28

relatively moving and shining on half the earth at any given time. To"set" means to stop or rest. The sun never does. This simple observationproves that when the Bible speaks of sunrise/sunset it is plainly speakingfrom the local, relative perspective of a person on the earth gazing intothe sky. It is by no means making a dogmatic, absolute statement aboutthe movement of heavenly bodies. When the sun is setting for me, at thesame moment it may be rising for you.

When cornered with this fact the geocentrists will then claim,"Well...the terms still mean the sun is the object doing the moving evenif it doesn't actually set." Really? We shall see.

The Lord Sets the Precedent

For scriptural proof the Lord and His Scriptures speak from anearthly frame of reference we only need to look at one of His mostprofound promises. In Genesis 15:5 the Lord made a key promise toAbraham. He told Abe to gaze into the sky and "Tell the stars if thou beable to number them?". Then the Lord, in just five words, unloaded anunconditional promise that still has huge ramifications today. He toldAbe, "So shall thy seed be." This promise that Abraham's seed wouldnumber as the stars speaks of the beginning of the nation of Israel and ofIsrael's seed, Jesus Christ. This promise based of the number of the startswas reiterated again and again,

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I willmultiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven,..." (Gen 22:17)

"And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven,..."(Gen 26:4)

Several hundred years later, after Israel was freed from Egyptianbondage, Moses said to them (Deut 1:10),

"The LORD your God hath multiplied you, and, behold, ye arethis day as the stars of heaven for multitude."

He said again in Deut 10:22 (see also Deut 28:62),

"Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and tenpersons; and now the LORD thy God hath made thee as the stars ofheaven for multitude."

29

Nehemiah even gets in on this (Neh 9:23),

"Their children also multipliedst thou as the stars of heaven, andbroughtest them into the land..."

And the author of Hebrews gives a New Testament confirmation ofthe promise's fulfillment (Heb 11:12),

"Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead,so many as the stars of the sky in multitude,..."

Many times the Scriptures say this promise has been fulfilled, buthow could this be? Did Abe already have billions and billions ofdescendants, as many as all the existing stars, only 400 years or so later?At most Abraham could only have had two million or so descendants(Ex 12:37), no where near the number of stars that are in the heavens(100 billion in our Milky Way Galaxy alone!). How do we reconcilethis? Simple, the Lord was using Abraham's limited human vision andearthly perspective of the heavens as the quantifying basis for Hispromise. He did not use as the quantifier the literal, absolute number ofthe stars of heaven as He knows them (Psa 147:4). He only used thenumber of stars Abraham could actually see: probably less than threethousand stars, even on a very clear night.

Imagine the scene: in a manner of speaking the Lord is on His thronein the third heaven looking down through all the billions and billions ofgalaxies He created (100 to 200 billion estimated at present), each witharound 100 billion stars, finally stopping his gaze at tiny planet earth andsees an old man standing looking up into the heavens; looking backtowards Him. Then the Lord tells the man to count the stars (if he can),knowing the man with his very limited human vision can only see 2,000-3,000 of the very brightest stars that are near the earth. Then the Lordmakes a promise generally based upon the number of stars the man sees.

This scriptural observation sets a precedent of the "frame ofreference" the Lord uses when He communicates with man and relaysinformation. Unless specifically and clearly shown otherwise, the Bibleperspective of reality and the universe is from the earth, and that is thebasis of the "geocentric" terminology the Bible uses.

Here are even more texts that indicate this,

"Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thynest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the

30

LORD." (Oba 1:4)

Can birds fly to the stars? Since we know NOW the nearest star isover four light-years away, it is impossible. However, from a humanperspective 3000 years ago, the stars are in heaven and birds fly inheaven, so the concept is somewhat conceivable.

"Thou (Nineveh) hast multiplied thy merchants above the starsof heaven:..."

Really? There were more merchants in Nineveh 2500 years ago thanthe stars of heaven? From who's perspective God's or an earth boundman? Obviously, this is not an absolute statement. No, geocentrists, Godis not deceiving us; He is simply using figurative, relative, and evenhyperbolic language. In these cases it is not only relative for the location,but also for the time period.

The Host of Heaven Innumerable?

In relation to the Lord having Abraham count the stars 4000 yearsago, around 1400 years later he said through Jeremiah (Jer 33:22),

"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand ofthe sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant,and the Levites that minister unto me."

Here the Lord is not referring to the children of Israel, but of David'sseed. However, this time He says the host or stars of heaven cannot benumbered. Ah...it seems a little advanced revelation is going on here!The Lord told Abraham to count all the stars he saw and then fulfilledthe promise a few hundred years later. Many centuries after Abraham aGreek named Ptolemy counted a total of 1026 visible stars claiming theycould be numbered thus "proving" Jeremiah 33:22 is an overstatement orfalse. Today we know the truth of the passage. The stars in heavencannot be numbered, no more than the sand of the sea.

Note: A few years ago some researchers tried to estimate thenumber of stars in the known universe and the number of grains ofsand on all the sea shores. Obviously, no exact number of either canbe determined by man, and it never will be. The best we can do isestimate. They determined that there are 70 thousand million

31

million million (70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars visiblefrom the Earth through telescopes. This is roughly 10 times morethan there are grains of sand on all the beaches. Looking in anotherdirection, there are about the same number of water molecules in 10drops of water as there are stars in the heavens! God's creationcontains very small things as well as very large.

Notice the Lord does not say in Jeremiah 33:22 that the seed of Davidwill number as many as the host of heaven; it says they will beinnumerable as the sand is innumerable. The number could be much lessand still innumerable. Nevertheless, in this instance the Lord said thestars cannot be numbered. Around 600 BC when these words werespoken men could not see anymore stars in the sky than they could inAbraham's day. However, the Lord progressed from "tell the stars" toyou can't number them in that time period. This seems to be an instanceof progressive revelation hidden in the Scriptures which Bible readerscould only understand AFTER the telescope was invented in 1608!

A Few Grains of Sand

In Genesis 22:17 the Lord reaffirmed the promise to Abrahamconcerning his seed. He again mentioned he would multiply his seed asthe stars of heaven, but also added another quantifying comparison?thesand which is upon the sea shore." The number of Abraham'sdescendants drastically increased with this "enhanced" promise! Beforeit was a few thousand according to the number of visible stars (whichcertainly tickled Abraham), but now it is much, much more. Anyone canstand on the beach and by merely looking between his feet see moregrains of sand than he can stars in the sky. Thus with this new quantifier,Abraham realized his descendants would be as countless as the sand.

Later on in the Scriptures it is revealed that the terms "stars of thesky" and "sand by the sea" are metaphors for an innumerable amount.The actual number (which God only knows) is not to be taken literally.Look at Judges 7:12,

"And the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the children ofthe east lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude; andtheir camels were without number, as the sand by the sea side formultitude."

Obviously, there were not as many camels as there is sand by the sea

32

side, but the camels were just as uncountable. The phrases are thusfigures of speech. Further proof of this is found in Revelation 20:8,

And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the fourquarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together tobattle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

The earth cannot hold as many people as there are actual grains ofsand (7 thousand million million million), so, again, this verse isspeaking figuratively of a countless number.

To Wax and Wane

Another fascinating phrase found multiple times in the Bible is whereit speaks of the sun "waxing hot" during the day (Exo 16:21, 1Sam 11:9,Neh 7:3). The phrase has a very clear and understandable meaning: asthe day progresses and the sun appears higher in the sky, the local "heat"from the sun increases. This is something everyone has experienced andwhen the Bible speaks of it the meaning is instantly understood.However, the sun "waxing hot" is a bane to the geocentrists. They willnever bring the verses up and when confronted with them they usuallybecome very defensive, irrational, and even combative. The reason? Ifthey treat these verses as literal as they treat the sunrise verses, they willlook like blank fools.

Look at Exo 16:21,

"And they gathered it (manna) every morning, every manaccording to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted."

What does it mean if this verse is taken absolutely literally? It meansthe sun actually, in itself, gets hotter. But that simply can't happenbecause when it is noon and "hot" in one place, it is dawn and dusk (andthus cooler) in other places, all from the same sun. Obviously, the sunitself is NOT changing its temperature; it does not actually get hotter.What is changing is the sun's angle of exposure to a local area. At mid-day the sun's rays are the most direct. At dawn and dusk they are weakerand diluted because of the shallow angle.

Example: Take a flashlight, for instance. Turn the light on andhold it directly over a desk so that the beam is shining straightdown. The light will be a bright circle not much larger than the lens

33

of the flashlight. Now hold the light almost flat or horizontal on thedesk so the beam is shooting all the way across it. See how the lightis spread across a much larger area and the brightness isdiminished? The amount of light and heat generated by theflashlight is constant, but since it is spread out over a wider areawhen held at a shallow angle its relative intensity at any given spotis weaker. Now imaging holding a light bulb over a basketball in adark room. Although it is a little harder to see, the light will bebrighter on the center of the ball facing the light that it will be onthe very edges of the light. The same goes for the sun and earth.The light and heat reaching the edges of the earth is "thinner" thanthe heat hitting it "head on."

Rational people realize the sun cannot change its temperature everyday to increase the temperature only in a very localized area. Theyunderstand when the Bible says the sun "waxed hot," it is speaking in arelative, local sense. However, some geocentrists try to "have their cakeand eat it too." One insisted the sun absolutely and literally got hotter,but only in a local sense, but "saying doesn't make it so." This is aconflation of terms. Something cannot be absolutely true in a local sense.As the dictionary states, "Absolute truth is something that is true at alltimes and in all places." It is something that is always true no matterwhat the circumstances." Either the sun absolutely waxed hot or it didn't,and as we have seen, the sun itself cannot get hotter in one locale and notanother.

A Key Revelation

Now the question arises, why does the Lord use relative language insome places that is impossible to be taken literally? He could have said"the day waxed hot" instead of the sun and there would have been noissue...but maybe he wanted an issue! Maybe He wanted to make it clearto Bible readers that references to the sun in His book are to beunderstood from an earthly perspective. There could be other reasons,but when it comes to creation, the movement of the heavenly bodies,geocentrism, and even the Flat Earth idea, it appears the Lord wants tobe purposely vague. What do the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" tells us?Relatively, they tell us that from the earth it appears the sun is moving,but the only absolute conclusion one can arrive at is simply there ismovement of something.

How passages like this are dealt with will reveal ones maturity and

34

consistency in dealing with the scriptures. If a geocentrist treats theaction of the sun waxing hot as absolute as he treats the action of the sun"moving" when it sets or rises, to be consistent he must conclude the sunitself (its body) is in some unknown way getting hotter in a very localarea. But since only an ignoramus would contend this, the Hyper-Literalgeocentrists are in a dilemma. They either have to confound the termsand hope no one will notice; admit the terms are relative, perspectivelanguage; or look like a blank fool.

The simple fact is "sunrise" no more requires the sun to move than"waxed hot" requires it to get hotter. The Scriptures have "thrown amonkey wrench" into the geocentrist's whirling contraption ofgeocentrism. The honest and spiritual believer will acknowledge whatthe Lord has done with this obvious relative language and try to learnfrom it. The "simple," however, will continue on in his simpleness.

A geocentrist Answers

Since most of the verses that deal with the sun "moving" in some wayhave been dealt with, the geocentrists only have a few other Biblepassages to appeal to for support, and we will look at them in thefollowing chapters on Bible Cosmology. Nevertheless, during thesummer of 2017 your author posted a list of questions for geocentrists onFacebook. The only geocentrist to sensibly address them all was one ofthe most notable among them, Robert Sungenis. He kindly answeredevery one without ridicule or mockery and without an air ofdefensiveness (a bad habit of some of the Bible-believing geocentrists)Sungenis was quick to admit that most Bible verses that deal with thesun moving, etc., were what is known as "phenomenal language." Thatis, the language of the senses or appearance.

When asked, about sun rising and sun setting being relative tothe observer. Sungenis replied, "Correct, since the "Sun rising" and"Sun setting" is phenomenal language."

When asked about the sun waxing hot, He replied, "This ismerely phenomenal language..."

When asked about Nahum 3:16 where it says says, "Thou(Nineveh) hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven,"and if he believes that to be literally and absolutely true? Hereplied, "It is phenomenal and hyperbolic language that humansuses frequently, as does Scripture."

When asked, "Were the merchants greater in number than the

35

stars of heaven or were they placed physically above the stars?"Sungenis answered, "It is a figure of speech."

It is clear Sungenis realizes that many of the passages used by mostBible Believing geocentrists to prove their claims are not to be taken inan absolute, literal sense. They speak using phenomenal language. It is ashame that a Roman Catholic (Sungenis) can make these obvious andnecessary distinctions but the Bible Believing Fundamentalists oftencannot.

In the following chapters we will examine the Bible to try anddetermine its "cosmology," and address most of geocentrism's other keyarguments.

36

King James Cosmology

2aBible Cosmology — Is There Such A Thing?Part 1

What Saith The Scriptures

When speaking of matters dealing with creation the Bible is veryspecific and clear as to why there is a creation—the God of heavencreated it! There is no waffling; no ambiguity; no vagueness, "In thebeginning God created the heaven and the earth." The Bible takes forgranted the reader understands God exists and is the creator and doesn'twaste time defending or explaining God or His existence. One eitherbelieves it or not. However, when it comes to HOW God created, theScriptures are often very ambiguous; sometimes frustratingly so to thosewith an agenda.

When confronted with the Bible's ambiguity, the believer needs toremember the passages are ambiguous or indefinite by design. God has apurpose in it. We often wish the Scriptures would reveal more detail, butthe Lord limited His revelation for His own reasons. Thus, the believer isnot to add his personal suppositions to the texts to force them to"comply" to his doctrine, but instead, from a practical perspective, heshould try to learn something from the ambiguity. One very helpfulconcept your author learned many years ago was one can learn quite abit from the Bible's silence—what the Bible doesn't say.

Whether a Bible passage or doctrine is very clear and definite orunclear and ambiguous, the believer's duty is to not go beyond what theyactually say. Some brethren feel the need to help the Lord convey His"truth," so they, often in a matter-of-fact way, teach that the Bibleproclaims doctrines that it simply doesn't mention. When it comes tocreation and the physical movements of the heavens, a lot of this"sanctified" doctrinal embellishment occurs.

One important fact a believer needs to always keep in mind is theBible was not written primarily to Christians in the Church Age, but tobelievers (and unbelievers) of all ages. To the Jews were committed theoracles of God (Rom 3:2) and the bulk of the Book was written directly

37

to and for them. Likewise, one must remember the Bible was addressedto people in different time periods as well. Early on people had muchless knowledge and revelation than we do today. This is on severalfronts: from theology to science. Thus we have to remember that wetoday, those progressing through time on the very cutting edge, can'texpect what the Lord revealed 3500 years ago to be at the level of"scientific detail" we may desire. Some say, "Yes, but God knowseverything and all the intricacies of reality." True, but He doesn't have to"tell everything He knows" in a book that is meant for believers over a3500 year period.

Beginning at the Beginning

In Genesis 1 the account begins with the simple but profoundstatement,

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

One cannot overestimate the scope of this statement. By creating thefirst physical objects, the Lord had to create an entire, extremelyintricate, system of physical principles and "laws" to govern His newreality. Just to get the earth to simply exist, even in a "without form andvoid" state, the Lord created atoms and molecules of countless types andvariations and then instantly devised unfathomable methods or "laws" tojoin these atoms in ways to make the most basic elements. Then withthese elements he somehow combined them to make the heavens and theearth. No one knows how the Lord did this, and no one will in thisearthly life. It appears He just spoke it all into existence, and that is allwe really need to know. It is like the Lord is telling us, "I madeeverything, now lets go on."

With the ten words of Genesis 1:1 the Lord tells us he created threethings: the heaven, the earth, and time ("the beginning"). When Godcreated matter he created physical movement. Though it took around6000 years for man to learn it, all matter is made up of atoms that arebuzzing with countless particles orbiting a tiny nucleus. With thismovement the concept of time was created. When one thinks about it,something must be moving to measure time. Look at your watch orclock. Something is moving in it whether tiny gears or a quartz crystal.Consider the length of a day: it's measured by the sun; the month by themoon; and the year by the combination of the sun and earth. If they allstopped moving there would be no calendar and if the atoms stopped

38

moving there would be no time or matter. Thus time and matter aremutually entwined and depend on each other for their very existence, allby the Lord's design.

Water...Where?

Genesis 1:2 opens up a whole new "can of ambiguity." Here the earthis "without form." Since around 1800 many books and debates havetranspired trying to deal with this verse and some have placed "time-gap" in it, but the "Genesis Gap" topic is not relevant to our presentsubject so we will digress. However, the second sentence of the verse isvery relevant, "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."geocentrists often use this verse to "prove" the earth is stationary sincethe Spirit of God is the object moving in the passage. They often gliblysay something like, "What about where it says the Spirit moved on theface of the earth in Genesis 1:2? That shows God does the moving andthe earth is stationary." Have you ever heard such a contrived statementdesigned to bolster a pet argume